Evaluación de la resistencia a la colistina a partir de aislamientos de Escherichia coli (E. Coli) en cerdos de México: Avaliação da resistência à colistina de isolados de Escherichia coli (E. coli) em porcos do México

La colistina es un antibiótico que ha sido utilizado en la producción porcina como tratamiento y prevención de enfermedades digestivas, entre ellas, las causadas por Escherichia coli. Este trabajo permite conocer la frecuencia de resistencia a la colistina en México, obtenida mediante la determinación de la Concentración Mínima Inhibitoria (MIC por sus siglas en inglés) de acuerdo con las recomendaciones del CLSI-EUCAST (MIC <2 μg/mL). Fueron 302 aislamientos provenientes de cerdos enfermos pertenecientes a granjas tecnificadas, remitidos al Departamento de Medicina y Zootecnia de Cerdos de la UNAM, en el periodo del 2003 al 2018. Los aislamientos recuperados corresponden a Veracruz (48 %), Puebla (38 %), Ciudad de México (7 %), Estado de México (3 %), Querétaro (3 %) y Aguascalientes (1 %). En México el nivel de resistencia a este antibiótico fue de 43.04 %, con una MIC50 y MIC90 de 2 μg/mL y 128 μg/mL, respectivamente. Veracruz fue el estado con mayor resistencia (46.87 %) y con la MIC90 más alta (128 μg/mL). En el estado de Puebla la resistencia fue de 35.92 % con una MIC90 de 16 μg/mL, mientras que para la zona centro se observa como gradualmente la MIC va siendo mayor. En la Ciudad de México un asilado del 2006 tenía una MIC de 0.5 μg/mL, mientras que para el 2017-2018 la MIC50 aumentó a 4 μg/mL y la MIC90 a 8 μg/mL. Los resultados obtenidos sugieren que el uso y exposición prolongada a un antibiótico generará resistencia

3er. Coloquio: Fortalecimiento de los Colectivos de Docencia

Las memorias del 3er. Coloquio de Fortalecimiento de Colectivos de Docencia deben ser entendidas como un esfuerzo colectivo de la comunidad de académicos de la División de Ciencias y Artes para el Diseño, en medio de la pandemia COVID-19, con el fin de: • Analizar y proponer acciones concretas que promuevan el mejoramiento de la calidad docente en la División. • Proponer acciones que permitan continuar fortaleciendo los cursos con modalidad a distancia (remotos). • Ante un escenario que probablemente demandará en el mediano plazo, transitar del modelo remoto a un modelo híbrido, proponer acciones a considerar para la transición de los cursos. • Planear y preparar cursos de nivelación de conocimientos, para cuando se transite a la impartición de la docencia de manera mixta o presencial, dirigidos a los alumnos que no hayan tenido oportunidad de desarrollar actividades relevantes para su formación, como prácticas de talleres y laboratorios, visitas, o alguna otra actividad relevante

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health